W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > March 2002

Re: D-AG0007- reliable, stable, predictably evolvable - v0x1

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:49:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200203121449.JAA27955@markbaker.ca>
To: Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com (Damodaran, Suresh)
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Suresh,

>  To ensure that the architecture is reliable it should demonstrate the
> following.
> 
> 	R1. All standards should be versioned.
> 	R2  Each release of the WS-A also should be versioned with the
> versions of the standards that go in the WS-A. Such a consistent set of
> versions will be called a "C-set" - for consistent set.

Wouldn't it be better if we gave incremental deployment of a particular
technology at least the same priority as wholesale deployment of a
profile/"C-set"?  IMO, we should give incremental deployment *higher*
priority, but I'd be content with "same priority".

Of course, this concern trickles down to some of your other points
below.  But rather than dwell on those I'd like to suggest an alternate
R1/R2;

  Evolvability in identified technologies should be considered up front
  so that, as much as possible, this degree of interoperability can be
  achieved.

Some of TimBL's notes on this are here;

http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Evolution.html

which also relates to ...

> Predictable Evolution of Architecture
> -------------------------------------

I believe that focusing on profiles/C-sets is a bad idea, as it appears
difficult (impossible?) to reconcile this with a goal that also places
emphasis on being predictably evolvable.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 09:45:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:56 GMT